JOURNAL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE & ARTS, VOL. 2, NO.

1, 2011

24

English in Malaysia: Concerns facing Nativization

Kumaran Rajandran Faculty of Music, Social Sciences and Design, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur kumaran@ucsi.edu.my ___________________________________________________________________________ Abstract This paper relates some of the concerns facing nativization for English in Malaysia. It argues of the need to recognize the varieties of English if English is to be considered a true pluricentric language. English in Malaysia is in contact with contextual factors that contribute to nativize it as Malaysian English. However, Malaysian English is not a monolith but it consists of the acrolect, mesolect and basilect. These sub-varieties are the linguistic results of contextual factors on Malaysian English. This paper briefly describes the function and genesis of these sub-varieties. It then considers some of the concerns that presently face Malaysian English. It places Malaysian English in the tussle between nationalism and pragmatism with implications for fields like education and multilingualism. Keywords: Malaysia, English, Nativization ___________________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION Today, English is used in many countries. This was caused by the empire of the United Kingdom (UK) and later the enterprise of the United States of America (USA). The British Empire that once canvassed 1/3 of the world and the economic dominance of the USA provided an impetus to use English in many parts of the world. Crystal (1997: 7-8) says that a language becomes international not due to the language itself but due to the political and economic power of its users. In this case, French, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish are included with English because each language entered various cultural and linguistic spheres, to be used by non-first language users (Kachru, 1983: 149). However, English became more than international and became global. Earlier international languages spread through colonization, migration and settlement but English also has high prestige in cultural, scientific, technological and other fields that contribute to English becoming global (Leitner, 1992: 186). As more people used English, first language users were dwarfed by those who used English as their second, third, fourth and so on, language, as shown by Kachru (1985). This is the case in Malaysia as English is frequently a second or third language, inherited from British colonization. As said by Crystal (2005) and Ostler (2006), the 20th century witnessed the notable development of non-standard varieties of English, caused by the long presence of English in its adopted lands. This resulted in nonnative traits emerging in English, as in Malaysian English. It is undeniable that Malaysian English is a term of convenience because it is bound by the boundaries of the nation-state, blurring its relations with other regional varieties, notably Singapore, which shares a lot of political and cultural history with Malaysia. However,

JOURNAL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE & ARTS, VOL. 2, NO. 1, 2011

25

Malaysian English reflects the context English faces in the post-colonial period in Malaysia as Malaysians use it to suit their political, economic and cultural demands. Although English has no legal status in Malaysia, English is termed the second most important language, as it is used in many domains by many citizens, surpassed only by Malay (Asmah, 1994). Many studies have been conducted on Malaysian English (Asmah, 1994; Baskaran, 2005; Pennycook, 1994) that cover its history or traits. This paper reviews the major characteristics of Malaysian English as well as the implications of Malaysian English in fields like education and multilingualism- vital concerns for a developing country.

2. CONCERN FOR VARIETY In Malaysia, Malaysian English exists but it lacks recognition as a standard variety although there have been positive steps to change this (Gill, 2002). This same lack of standard is shared by the many creoles, dialects, hybrids and nativized varieties of English (McArthur, 1998). If English is not the original language of that country or region but English has been present there for some time, English develops other functions that contribute to nativize it (McArthur, 1998; Trudgill & Hannah, 2002). In this case, Malaysian English is a nativized variety since English is present in Malaysia for more than 150 years. It is not a local ethnic language but English has many roles in Malaysia. This requires studying English as a cultural form that moves, changes and is reused in a Malaysian context (Pennycook, 2007: 6) because nativized varieties incorporate features from the native languages in phonology, morphology, syntax, lexis and pragmatics that are consistent and fixed that users follow (McArthur, 1998; Trudgill & Hannah, 2002). There are many languages in Malaysia, the majority being Malay, known by Malays and non-Malays because it is the national and official language but also many Chinese languages, the majority being Cantonese and Hokkien and Indian languages, the majority being Tamil. These native languages play a part in nativizing English in Malaysia (Baskaran, 2005). This suggests that English is not haphazardly nativized but it is nativized to suit the purposes of its users. This makes Malaysia another center of variety for English. Clyne (1992a) says that this is the reality for pluricentric languages like English. Pluricentric refers to languages with more than one country or region possessing a standard variety of a language. While standard varieties from the UK and the USA, even Australia, Canada and New Zealand are accepted by most users of English, the varieties (standard or non-standard) from the margin that among others includes India, Singapore, South Africa, Tanzania and a host of countries in which English is nativized need to be engaged with the dominant standard varieties. These marginal varieties have to be recognized instead of valorizing varieties from several chosen centers. Not doing so stifles the right of post-colonial countries to claim English for their use and risks a preference for standard varieties from former colonial centers or present economic centers. Yet, it is not enough to just acknowledge a variety but also to consider the relation between this variety and other (standard and non-standard) varieties.

3. BIFURCATING MALAYSIAN ENGLISH Kachru (1983: 155) posits a scale of Englishes from standard to non-standard varieties, with each differing more and more from Standard British English (SBE). Malaysia inherited SBE that is considered the model of good English but Kachru (1983: 149) claims that English

JOURNAL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE & ARTS, VOL. 2, NO. 1, 2011

26

has since developed in the local cultural and linguistic spheres. This provides a continuum of use for English, influenced by depth and range. When English penetrates various levels of society (E.g. age, ethnicity, region), its depth is deep and when English penetrates various domains (E.g. administration, commerce, education, media), its range is many. English in Malaysia has no legal status but its factual status is evident from the depth and range available to it, surpassed only by Malay. Hence, English in Malaysia has deep depths and many ranges. This depth-range scene suggests that English is used by different people at different times and places, implying that this nativized variety is heterogeneous. Baskaran (2005) says that this nativized variety is systemic in its own way, as voiced by McArthur (1998) and Trudgill & Hannah (2002) but she divides it into three lects, categorizing the heterogeneity inherent in many varieties of English (Kachru, 2003: 440). This division is found in standard or non-standard varieties because there is bound to be differences caused by contextual factors (Relating to depth and range) that influence language use. By identifying these lects, Baskaran (2005) recognizes the linguistic results of contextual factors on Malaysian English. These lects are the acrolect, mesolect and basilect and each lect is distinguishable by phonology, morphology, syntax and lexis (Baskaran, 2005: 22). Where, when and why are these lects used? Here, work by Gill (2002) is useful to provide a typology of these lects. Gill (2002: 52) says that the acrolect is used for international purposes while the mesolect and basilect are used for national purposes. Each lect has notable differences from the other that reflects diverse cultural and linguistic influences on English (Kachru, 1983). If this is so, each lect can be seen as a sub-variety of a variety with their specific features (Baskaran, 2005). There exists a complementary relation between the lects and their contextual factors because the lects reflect users communicative purposes in different contexts. These lects can now be considered in detail. Gill (2002) mentions that the acrolect shares many features with Standard British English (SBE). The acrolect deviates little from SBE in morphology, syntax and lexis (Baskaran, 2005; McArthur, 2003). The acrolect does not have extended depth and range to result in its use in limited contexts but it is the lect taught, learnt and used in many formal domains inside or outside the country by Malaysians. It is the educated variety of Malaysian English. The acrolect is commonly used in speech and writing, mostly in formal domains and it does permit some nativization (Baskaran, 2005), notably in phonology and lexis. This is seen in the following example from a story from the New Straits Times (11/10/10), a Malaysian newspaper, with lexis from Malay: Three healers from Terengganu Islamic Foundation (YIT) claim they captured 12 more djinns [evil spirits] from the house of Siti Balqis Mohd Nor after she disappeared again on Saturday night. Her family thought her ordeal was over when two bomoh [faith healers] captured nine djinns on Friday and put them in sealed containers. The mesolect permits more deviation from SBE in phonology, morphology, syntax and lexis and shows more traits of nativization (Gill, 2002). It is used in speech and at times in writing for semi-formal and informal use. The mesolect is used by Malaysians in many depths and ranges as it is used as a national and interethnic sub-variety. Local language influence is more noticeable in this sub-variety, notably Malay because it is the most widely used native language (Baskaran, 2005). This is understandable as the mesolect tends to be used among Malaysians in semi-formal or informal situations, as these examples from Gill (2002: 94) show:

JOURNAL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE & ARTS, VOL. 2, NO. 1, 2011

27

I know many friends ah who give up their savings, check out even their FD's and came even asking for Symphony. [Standard English: I know many friends who have given up their savings and they even checked out their fixed deposits and have asked for Symphony.] and strictly lah Mrs. Tan not too good to eavesdrop, know. [Standard English: and strictly speaking Mrs. Tan, its not very nice to eavesdrop.] Gill (2002) writes that the basilect is very lenient in its phonology, morphology, syntax and lexis. The basilect is also used as a national and interethnic sub-variety. It is commonly used in speech and only in informal use and it is malformed, allowing much interference from native languages. The following exemplify the basilect: I never do that lah. [Standard English: I didnt do it.] You sobadwan, I don wan to fren you. [Standard English: Youre not a nice person. I dont want to be friends with you anymore.] It can be summarized that the acrolect is used for formal national and international purposes while the mesolect and basilect are used for semi-formal to informal national purposes. It is important for users to know where, when and why to use these lects as not knowing so endangers comprehensibility. However, it must be kept in mind that each lect is not a discrete unit but represents discernible parts in the lect scale of Malaysian English that can and do blend into each other.

4. POSITIONING MALAYSIAN ENGLISH During colonization, English was used by the British and the educated elite while most Malaysians used Malay and other native languages (Asmah, 1993). Exposure to English was minimal for those in the rural areas or those with no access to English education. Not knowing English barred them from higher paying jobs that limited their personal and professional mobility. Upon independence in 1957, Malay became the official language but English could be used jointly with Malay until 1967. This was done to enable corpus planning for Malay so it could be modernized to bear the burden of the new, modern state (Rajandran, 2008). Malay became the sole national language in 1967 because it was the majority native language also known by most non-Malays. Promoting Malay was expected to minimize economic disparities between the Malays and non-Malays by removing the English hurdle to economic improvement. These reasons are understandable in their context yet early nationalists had little regard for the roles English could play for Malaysia. After 1967, English saw a reduction in its roles as Malay began to replace it in most formal and public domains. This reduced peoples exposure to acrolect English, except through the media and formal education. This lack of exposure encouraged mixing English with native languages. The need for acrolect English decreased as Malay was promoted that permitted the mesolect and basilect to flourish. As Malay was now to replace the roles of English, there was little impetus to use formal, standard English as it was no longer linked to personal and professional mobility. Some nationalists believed that Malay should replace English in as many domains as possible

JOURNAL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE & ARTS, VOL. 2, NO. 1, 2011

28

and this was actively pursued from 1957-2002 (Rajandran, 2008). This belief harms more than helps the country because Malay is not capable of replacing all the roles of English. However, former Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir Mohammad redefined nationalism by saying that it means doing everything possible for the nation, even if it means learning English (Cited in Gill, 2002: 41). By learning English, Malaysians do not dilute their sense of identity but enhance the nations image (Mahathir cited in Gill, 2002: 41-42). The true nationalist is pragmatic in using English. Hence, the government has now embarked on improving the teaching and learning of English in the education system.

5. CONCERN FOR EDUCATION Globalization has cultural, economic, linguistic and technological strands (Phillipson, 2000: 90) that can be exploited by Malaysians if they understand such strands, often expressed in English. This requires the acrolect. Its features make it most suitable for linking Malaysians with the world. Where does this leave the mesolect and basilect? The contextual factors must be considered to justify the use of these lects. The mesolect and basilect serve an integrative purpose to foster communication and a sense of solidarity among Malaysians. In certain semi-formal and informal domains it is acceptable to resort to the mesolect and basilect. Bifurcating Malaysian English into lects enables considering the factors that motivate people to use these lects. It also shows that English is a Malaysian language that has suited itself to many depths and ranges. The caveat is that people must know where, when and why to shift lects. The individual must consider the sociolinguistics of his or her interaction before lect shifting (Gill, 2002: 56). It is here that education plays a role, acting as a controller of lect shifting. Malaysians need to consciously know lect shifting because not knowing it results in an uncomfortable scene for both speaker/writer and listener/reader and this can possibly portray an incompetent user of English. One of the best ways to inculcate lect shifting is education. As students are ensured exposure to English through compulsory schooling for 11 years, syllabuses and teachers are pivotal in teaching students where, when, why and with whom to use Malaysian English lects. As Trudgill & Hannah (2002) believe, ESL and EFL students should learn Standard English as it ensures them a variety with the greatest reach. This is fulfilled by acrolect Malaysian English, as educated non-native varieties are increasingly recognized as a standard that users can follow (Kachru, 2003: 452). However, ESL education in Malaysia should make students aware of the lects instead of ignoring them. This can be done by teaching students their characteristics so they can identify the lects and the contextual factors surrounding their use. This includes comparing the lects, seeking linguistic similarities and differences between them. Teachers could stimulate discussion about the reasons for using these lects, making students aware of contextual factors. Students should be encouraged to find examples of the lects in their daily life so they realize the presence of these lects around them. Perhaps this requires pedagogic materials to be developed to satisfy this exercise. This exercise exposes students to the lects and teaches them to function in the lect scale by balancing ethnic-national identity and comprehensibility with Malaysians and non-Malaysians. It makes students conscious of Malaysias linguistic diversity and sensitive to the ways language use portrays them. Consciousness-raising must take a descriptive step, not a prescriptive step, as only by understanding these lects can students use them correctly.

JOURNAL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE & ARTS, VOL. 2, NO. 1, 2011

29

6. CONCERN FOR STANDARD Although Malaysian English exists, it is nebulous. It is what Ammon (Cited in Clyne, 1992a) names the predominantly exonormative variety as it is influenced to some extent by its point of origin, particularly the acrolect. This point of origin for Malaysian English is Standard British English (SBE), since Malaysia was a British dominion. If Malaysian English remains influenced by SBE and does not plan for Standard Malaysian English, its native traits are less discernible that denies it the ability to distinguish itself as a valid standard. Not every English using country is in the same group. Some like Australia and Canada are semi-endonormative while the UK and the USA are completely endornormative since the standard variety was developed in the country with no or little external influence (Ammon cited in Clyne, 1992a: 4). However, the lack of a standard does not mean an endornormative variety does not exist, as is the case of Malaysian English. It points to a lack of corpus planning and status planning and Gill (2002: 46) suggests that steps be taken narrow this gap. Yet, endonormative standards have come from countries with English as the majority language, as in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA. Much remains to be done to recognize endonormative standards from countries with English as the minority and traditionally second or foreign language, as in India, Singapore or the Philippines. For Malaysia, this endonormative standard is based on acrolect Malaysian English. However, a generally accepted norm for English is an attitudinally loaded question (Kachru, 2003: 438) because even if Malaysia promoted its own endonormative standard, it has to deal with questions of authority and prestige, not only from outside the country but also from inside the country.

7. CONCERN FOR MULTILINGUALISM This valorization of Malaysian English also has to deal with Malay. The Constitution of Malaysia stipulates Malay as the national and official language and some fear its importance is diluted if Malaysian English is recognized and promoted. Malay cannot perform the global roles of English and most languages in the world share its fate. Malay is the national language of Brunei, Indonesia and Singapore with pockets of users in Cambodia, the Philippines and Thailand and Malay has long been used as an agrarian, cultural, literary and religious language. Safran (2005) suggests the functional differentiation of languages, with each language used for different functions that can be divided into international communication for English and national communication for Malay, creating two exclusive spaces where each language can thrive. Graddol (1997) also believes that English can be used as the transnational and transregional language while native languages like Malay are used for national and regional purposes. This solution purportedly specifies the roles demanded of both languages. However, Malaysias multilingual nature does not permit this. Malaysians use languages from Cantonese to Iban to Tamil and these languages foster ties for the ethnic groups that use them. Also, English is not used outside the country but also inside the country. Besides, Malay is not exclusive to Malaysia and a standard variety is promoted via the BruneiIndonesian-Malaysian Language Council (MABBIM) that shares up to 70% mutual comprehensibility in the councils three member countries (Asmah, 2004: 170), making Malay a transnational and regional language. This complicates the neat functional differentiation suggested by Graddol (1997) and Safran (2005). Perhaps inclusive spaces

JOURNAL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE & ARTS, VOL. 2, NO. 1, 2011

30

would solve this problem better, as either English or Malay can be used for international demands, regional demands, national demands and local demands, based on contextual factors. This would provide a flexible role for English and Malay as their use depends on peoples context. Pragmatism must be used when it comes to language choice and when and where to use English or Malay is a matter that is in constant flux, not set in stone.

8. CONCLUSION Crystal (2005) claims that Standard English is not easily threatened by regional developments as the standard and non-standard varieties share a common core of linguistic identity that unites them. He argues that non-standard varieties show local identity and standard varieties are needed for transnational comprehensibility. Yet, he does not identify a local standard variety that negotiates the local-global divide- the acrolect. Also to bear in mind is the very established position of Standard British English and Standard American English and newer standard varieties that bear close resemblance to them like Australian English or Canadian English (Crystal, 2005). The risk of any break up of English has so far been fantasy or paranoia. Newer Englishes, be they from India, Tanzania or Malaysia would or would not diverge much from the recognized standard varieties, depending on which lect is projected. Crystal (2005: 529-531) discusses the roles played by standard and non-standard Englishes that recognizes the inevitability and necessity of both varieties. The monolith of English must be destroyed and people must be made conscious of the diversity available in English. As Clyne (1992b) says, national identity is seen through national varieties and Malaysian English is a reflection of Malaysian identity. Malaysian English and its valorization redefine the struggle for English and voice diverse contextual factors instead of universalizing them. This paper reviewed the function of the acrolect, mesolect and basilect in Malaysian English. It is seen that these lects arose due to the changing context of English in Malaysia, reflecting the materiality of localities that English is embedded in (Pennycook, 2007: 6). Future studies should document Malaysians perceptions of these lects, codify these lects and produce pedagogic materials. These ideas need to be realized with the aim of encouraging teaching and learning English, not as an alternative to Malay but as a resource for all Malaysians.

9. REFERENCES [1] Asmah Haji Omar. 1993. The First Congress for Malay. In Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), The Earliest Stage of Language Planning: The First Congress Phenomenon. Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer, 181-198. [2] Asmah Haji Omar. 1994. English in Malaysia: A Typology of Its Status and Roles. In Thiru Kandiah & John Kwan-Terry (eds.), English & Language Planning: A Southeast Asian Contribution. Singapore: Times Academic Press, 242-260. [3] Asmah Haji Omar. 2004. Muafakat Bahasa: Sejarah MBIM/MABBIM sebagai Pembina Bahasa. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. [4] Baskaran, Loga Mahesan. 2005. A Malaysian English Premier. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. [5] Clyne, Michael. 1992a. Introduction. In Michael Clyne (ed.), Pluricentric Languages.

JOURNAL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE & ARTS, VOL. 2, NO. 1, 2011

31

Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer, 1-9. [6] Clyne, Michael. 1992b. Epilogue. In Michael Clyne (ed.), Pluricentric Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer, 455-465. [7] Crystal, David. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8] Crystal, David. 2005. The Stories of English. London: Penguin Books. [9] Gill, Saran Kaur. 2002. International Communication. Serdang: University Putra Malaysia Press. [10] Graddol, David. 1997. The Future of English? Retrieved July 05, 2010. Available at: http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-elt-future.pdf [11] Kachru, Braj B. 1983. Models for New Englishes. In Juan Cobarrubias & Joshua A. Fishman (eds.), Progress in Language Planning . Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 145-170. [12] Kachru, Braj. B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11-34. [13] Kachru, Braj. B. 2003. Regional Norms for English. In Kingsley Bolton & Braj Kachru (eds.), World Englishes. Volume VII. London: Routledge, 434-456. [14] Leitner, Gerhard. 1992. English as a pluricentric language. In Michael Clyne (ed.), Pluricentric Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer, 179-237. [15] McArthur, Tom. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [16] New Straits Times. http://www.nst.com.my/nst/ [17] Ostler, Nicholas. 2006. Empires of the Word. New York: Harper Perennial. [18] Pennycook, Alastair. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Singapore: Longman Publishers. [19] Pennycook, Alastair. 2007. Global English and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge. [20] Phillipson, Robert. 2000. English in the New World Order. In Thomas Ricento (ed.), Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English. Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 87-106. [21] Rajandran, Kumaran. 2008. Language planning for the Malay language in Malaysia since independence. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 2(2), 237-248. [22] Safran, William. 2005. Introduction: The Political Aspects of Language. In William Safran & Jean A. Laponce (eds.), Language, Ethnic Identity and the State. New York: Routledge, 1-14. [23] Trudgill, Peter & Hannah, Jean. 2002. International English. London: Arnold.